 All right, any changes to the agenda tonight? Bring none. Let's get into public comment. Eric, you said there's at least one person. Yeah, Nate is here. Nate, I'm going to go and let you unmute yourself if you wanted to speak now or if you wanted to wait until the agenda item. Thanks, Eric. Can you hear me? Okay. Yep. I don't think I need to dive into details and I know everyone's seeing some of this language after the first time. So I just wanted to get a quick public comment in on the language. If that's okay. Sure, go ahead. So I'm Nate DeGesse, a longtime Winooski property owner, past resident. Our family business is located in Winooski. I noticed there was some new language proposed for historic and cultural resources, which I think makes a lot of sense. I think there's some, some work that should be done in that regard. I just wanted to let the planning commission know that I'd be happy to be a resource or somebody that they can bounce information off of related to real estate development and how construction and housing could be affected by the specific language of a new historic and cultural resources code. And, you know, specifically just on some of the key issues that I've already seen just taking a quick look at the language it relates to the details of how the process would integrate with the current state Act 250 process and just how a developer would typically navigate either altering or raising an existing building that could be on some level of a historic registry. So I'd be happy to give input at a later date if there's a time that makes sense. I didn't want to dive into this meeting and spend any more time on it than I needed to, but I just wanted to get that comment out there and good luck in taking this further. Are you hanging around or are you bowing out? I don't have time to hang around, Mike, because I've got three kids here that I've got to try to get, get moving along. So, um, and I wasn't sure if, if tonight would be the right night to, to kind of give input on it or not, but, um, you know, happy to come back on another call or even just answer questions or I could even just send in a letter of more specific concerns I might have. Yeah, I, I just, I'm not sure what's going to happen tonight. If we're going to, I suspect we'll probably revisit this. Um, Maybe the next meeting, but who knows it may, we may not to, it may move this forward. I don't know where it stands with the rest of the commission. So if you could send up, maybe send a letter in, um, or maybe, you know, call me or Eric tomorrow to find out where it stands, that'd be fine. Yeah. And I think one more specific comment is, um, you know, getting VDHP, um, involved in again that the language, um, so that the process of, if somebody's going through active 50 and local zoning that those processes kind of match and they're on a parallel track and there's not, you know, two additional hurdles. Um, that was one of my more specific comments, but I'd be happy to do that like and take my comments offline. Okay. Thanks, Nate. Thank you. Any other public comment. So Leslie Fry has joined us. Um, Leslie, I know you signed up to speak under, uh, On the form and you had specific comments on section four four. So, uh, right now we're just doing public comments. So, uh, I don't know if you wanted to wait until we get to that item on the agenda or not, but you're free to unmute yourself. If you'd like. At this point to, to provide any information. Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Okay. Um, yeah, I, I, I could just say my comments now, but then I'll stay tuned for the rest of the meeting. Leslie, let me interrupt you. Sure. Are you going to stick around for the rest of the meeting? Okay. I'll be muted. Oh, what? Oh, no, we'll, we'll let you, we'll let you comment when we come up to that item then. Okay. Oh, rather than now, you mean. Yeah. If you had to leave, we'd let you speak now, but, but it's more appropriate if you talk during the, during the discussion. Okay. Okay, fine. All right. Thank you. All right. No other public. There is not no. Okay. So then we'll move to approval of the previous meeting minutes. I'll move. Okay. Second by Joe and just so, so it's clear. I think we're all voting members tonight, correct? Yeah. Yeah. Cause Tommy's not here. Yes. That was correct. Okay. All right. Uh, any edits or changes to the minutes. Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion to approve the minutes, please say aye or raise your hand or whatever. Okay. Anyone opposed? Anyone want to abstain? Okay. Those pass. So next we have, um, Introduction and discussion of article four, I think is what was on the agenda. Yep, that's correct. So, um, we've. We're picking up again with article four. We had a brief introduction to this back, I believe in September or October of last year. We were looking at some possible amendments that would help, uh, support historic resource protection, but also article four is where we get into our parking regulations and sign regulations and, um, a lot of the other just general use regulations. So there were some amendments that I was proposing to, to be reviewed. So we were, we shifted our focus to the, uh, priority housing issues, which we just wrapped up at our last meeting. So now we're bringing back article four to continue this discussion. So some of this may be slight re, uh, slightly a re. Not sure what the word is I'm trying to say here, but you may remember some of this, but it also might be new because it's been a while since we last looked at it. So what I thought we could do, like we've been doing with the other sections is just, uh, start at the beginning and start kind of walking through each section. Some of the, some of the amendments are pretty straightforward. I think, and really more intended for clarification. While others are a little bit more detailed and obviously, like in the example of section 4.4, we're getting into some new language altogether for historic resource protection. So, uh, is there any, any questions about what we're thinking about or talking about for tonight before we start into things. And I guess what I would like to say before we get into this is there's a couple other items on the agenda that I want to make sure we have time for. So, um, I don't, I don't think we need to try to get through everything tonight. If we can, if we don't need to, but, um, you know, happy to, happy to stay as late as you all want to. So anyway, about 15 minutes for the other stuff. Um, probably 15, 20 would be fine. I think. So let's, let's try to look at a, about an hour for this right now. Cause I'd like to, I'd like to finish by eight. Yeah, I think that should be, that should be sufficient for us. All right. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to go ahead and share my screen here as. We've been doing and give me a moment while I bring up all my other windows too. And reconfigure things. So that we can all. Be looking at the same stuff. Uh, okay. So, uh, like, as I mentioned, article four is our general use regulations. So there's. I think 16 different sections here. Um, some, like I mentioned, there's some amendments proposed in some and not much proposed in others as the language is fairly, fairly good right now. So first section is for one on abandonment stabilization and demolition. And I'm proposing some changes here under item C. Um, I'm going to go ahead and share with you some of the things that we've been doing. Um, this is being done in, uh, in response to some comments that have come in from the state, from the division of historic preservation, specifically the language that's being stricken. Uh, as we've heard in the past, the state division of historic preservation no longer wants to be involved or has any intention of being involved with historic resource protection at a local level, as far as zoning is concerned. So they've asked us to remove this language and, um, Oh, sorry, go ahead, Joe. My memory was that it was partly stricken to is not that they didn't want to be involved, but they said that they did not have the staff or resources to be involved because it was, it was putting a pretty heavy burden on them. I think it's, I think that was part of it, but also from what I've heard lately, they, they don't have the ability to, or they, I guess, aren't. They don't want to get involved in local zoning discussions about historic resources. They really want to have the, the municipalities address those concerns on their own and not be the arbiter of those, those issues as they, they really have no authority to enforce local zoning. So because this is part of our zoning regulations, that's why they've asked us to remove, remove this language. So really what I'm proposing here is to kind of shift this to say, because it's specifically related to demolition, that it would, we would look to this section 4.4 for the requirements on demolition of properties or properties that are structures that are listed either on the national state registers or the cultural resources, cultural and historic resources map of the master plan. And then if we had a local registry, which we currently do not, but if at such a time we do get a local registry of historic places, then it would apply to that as well. So kind of a placeholder for a future local registry. So, and questions or comments on that. Eric, I have a question about. Why would we need a local registry if we can lean on this cultural and historic resources now. That's a good question. It could be that the two so right now the cultural and historic resources map only shows the state and national register properties. So it doesn't get into and it shows I believe the, the national register districts. It doesn't show any, any specific local resources. So it could be that. So in order to qualify for the, the national register and the state register, it has to meet the federal standards. So it could be that we're also designating local resources that may not necessarily meet the strict standards of the federal requirements, but do have a significance to the city of Winooski and Winooski's history. That we may want to identify independently from those other registries. So it's, it's really, I think it's really more of a way to identify properties that have local significance specifically. I guess I was wondering, like, couldn't we just add those to this resource map? Like, could we have a process, you know, Britta had identified a number of locations for us. Could we have a process to get those added to this map as a point of reference, one point of reference. Yeah, absolutely. I guess what I was thinking is that the local, if we did a local registry, it would also be reflected on the map. So the two would, it would be basically a listing and then a visual representation of those properties as well. They wouldn't be two separate documents. And from what, what I'm understanding is that. By having a local registry, it just gives more teeth in the game. It means the community has decided what buildings it finds important. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think it also gives the community a better, better opportunity to, to ensure that the information is more accurate and up to date. As we've discussed in the past, the, the state registry anyway, and I believe the national registry for, for Winooski was last updated in the seventies. So some of that information is pretty far out of date. And, you know, a lot of buildings have met the minimum thresholds for listing since then. Well, maybe not in Winooski, because most of the housing or most of the buildings are from the 1900s anyway, but you know, there's, there's been some changes for sure. So a local registry does give a little bit more local control over what's happening. Yeah. And to echo your statement there, Eric, what you just said, there's a lot of structures as we know that are on, like the state historic register no longer exists anymore. And because that was done 40 years ago, a lot of buildings that probably should have been on there that were never included in what was a pretty preliminary. Pioneering document in the first place. So just to, to echo that point. Right. So, so this is really just a way to kind of. Identify where we're going to be looking. For any, for the demolition of any, any buildings that may be historically significant. Okay. So the next section is on access driveways and circulation. And there's really not much new here. Just a few. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Before you go there. I didn't know if Leslie wanted to make her comments because I think that she was. Sure. Leslie, you can unmute yourself if you'd like. If you have any comments on that section. Otherwise you can stay muted and. We can wait till later. Looks like she is staying muted at this point. So, okay. Next section is on access and circulation. Again, not much new here. Not much changing here anyway. Sorry for the quick scrolling. Just here are some clarification on. Looking to the specific standards identified by the department of public works and removing the citation to the exact section, because I don't think that actually exists. So really just clarifying that. Public works will have the standards in whatever. Form that they take. The next section here, number three, this is actually, I'm proposing that this be moved. So keeping the language as it is just moving it from this section. To the end of this. This. The end of this part. So this language will remain just not in this location. Again, here, just a reference to public work standards and getting rid of this specific citation. Adding some, some titles in with the figures just for clarification. And please stop me if there's anything you want to comment on. So then here's where that encroachment would be moved to. So I believe all the language is still the exact same. Just relocating it here to the end of the section. And renumbering. And a new letter as well. So any questions or comments? About any of that information. Okay. Next is section 4.3. So this is for conversions or change of use and really just to clarify. Again, clarification that there may be some. Additional review for site plan, depending on the change of use and just to add that additional language, which is what's included under part two here. And also just to add in a caveat that if there's any state, federal or any state or federal regulations that may conflict with these for changes of use. So fairly minor change there as well. Okay. So now we're going into section 4.4. And so this was originally just titled design review and kind of covered. Various parts and pieces of the regulations. And so what I'm proposing to do is instead of having this be just for general design review. That this now become historic, architectural. Cultural and archeological design review. And so a lot of what you'll see in here is kind of geared towards those four components. And really. Is intended to. Provide some level of process and review for buildings or properties or structures that are. Either on in the state or national register. Or the cultural resources map or a local registry. If we had one. And then also if there's a structure. And so. I think that would be a good idea. For the cultural resources map. Or a local registry. If we had one. And then also if there's a structure or property that's in a low state, national or local district. That may not be individually listed. So this. This new section would apply to those. Those specific properties. I should also mention before we get too far into this. Just for full disclosure. Before we get to the next week, I met with Sarah and Joe to talk about some of this language, just to make sure that. I wasn't missing anything or kind of misrepresenting anything. So I have. They have had a preview of this information before this meeting. So they did help me with some, some clarification and just to help me kind of think through. How I was wording some of the language and what some of this would look like. So. Yeah. So I'm going to add their Eric. And that was very useful. And thank you for doing that. Because this is also. It was said earlier. This was discussed back in maybe like November or something. Yeah. And I was not a part of that. So it was good for you to like it. You have to speed on it. So I thank you. Yeah, absolutely. So really what I'm trying to do here is. In the applicability section. This is where there's a big change is basically take this. Have this apply to. All of the zoning districts where there's. Basically for the entire state. So if there's a, if there's a property. Or a structure or something that's included in any of these locations. I wanted these standards to apply. Or that's, that's the intent here is that the standards would apply. Once we get into it here. Sorry to interrupt. I just thought that Leslie has her hand out. Yep. I just noticed that as well. Leslie, you can go ahead and unmute yourself if you'd like. Okay. I'm really not sure of the most appropriate. Time to speak, but. If you want to get through section 4.4, I just want to speak before you leave that section. That's all. Yep. We've a lot to cover in this section. So you'll have. Plenty of chances, I think. Okay. Then I'm going to mute until you are ready for comments. Okay. Okay. So yeah, so really what I'm, what this is basically being changed to do is say that. If a building structure property, regardless of where it is in the city falls within one of these four items listed. Then the section would apply. Eric, how many do you just, just as a ballpark, do you know how many. Residential. So I see under the old language, it didn't apply for a residential use of three or fewer units. Do we know how many. Buildings there are that are, it's a residential use of three or fewer units that is on one of these lists. That is a good question. I do not. I don't know, Joe, if you have any information on that. I don't think I could give anything off the top. And actually. This is partly why I think Eric is potentially referencing forthcoming documents is that. There's a lot of work that hasn't been done on this. Just, I would say. I don't think there are. I mean, I think the city has an idea of how many structures were, say built pre 1900, but I don't think we have any real. I think we have a range of like, we have the work, Britta did for the gateway corridors. And we have whatever the state documents are, but beyond that, there's not much. Whereas if you go with like the village of Essex, it seems like looking over their documents, like every block of the village of Essex, like almost every building is documented, which they have a very. I don't know what transpired there that they got that level of information. Okay. What, Brendan, what I can do is I can get you information or should be able to get you information on. The buildings or structures or properties that are currently listed on the state or national register. And what the. What those are as far as how they're currently what they're developed as, whether they be residential commercial, something else. I believe I have a GIS data on that that I can, but I don't know. Yeah, I would, I would appreciate that. It's just be good to know potentially how, how much, how many properties are we. What we're talking about by this. I do have in front of me the state register. And there's only 60 that are currently standing. And that's total. Like all city. Yeah. No, I mean, it's, yeah, for what is documented. Right. Yeah. Yeah. 32 and gateway corridor. Originally, I think there were, I think there's only 29 now. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that doesn't include like. St. Stephen's church. The textile mills and the Winooski block. Those might be on national historic registers, which were not included. I thought a couple of things. I thought reading quickly through British thing. It didn't sound like St. Stephen's church building was on any register. And the other thing is she identified, I think two historic districts. And I don't know if those are national state or locals. Anybody know. But she only did the gateways, Mike. Okay. Yeah. But she, but she had some other, she referenced other areas that could be. Like clear street and. I forget the other ones. I think the only districts that we have our national districts and those are, there might be one state district out on West canal street. The districts are shown on the, the cultural and historic resources map in the master plan. Okay. But I believe there's two districts, two national districts in, in and around the downtown with the mills and then one. State district out on West canal street, I believe is what I remember off of that map. But what, what this is reflecting is it's sort of a mess. I don't know. We haven't really collated all this. So just to answer your question, Mike, Mike, oddly enough, St. Stephens is not on the register, but the rectory is. That's how I read British thing. Yeah. And I think what it is, is that again, an outdated document because that building was only. Like 49 years old when the survey was conducted. So because it was like, wasn't at least 50 years old. It probably wasn't included even though today it would definitely be included. But, but she also referenced. Platte street, mansion street, Barlow area, which includes the church. So as a district, and I don't know if that's official or if that was just to see. She might have meant that they were potential. Yeah, I think what she was referencing was that they have the right to be a district, but they're not formally designated districts. Got you. Okay. So this is basically shifting where this, this regulation would apply where this section would be applicable. And these items, some of them I am proposing to be deleted. And some of these are just moving to a different section. So you'll see these here again. Later the, the specific. Yeah, the specific actions. So this new section is really kind of how these standards would be applied. And so. The wording on this is a little clunky, I think, but it kind of, so because it references sections that you haven't seen yet and is referencing sections that you've just looked at also. So basically what it's saying is any of the, the building's properties or structures that were are. Are included under the section of applicability. Under this section here. So what we would need to follow are that we're a proposed action. That'll be forthcoming is proposed. Then there's this section four, four E that needs to be followed, which gets into the kind of the documentation, what needs to be identified, how it's identified, et cetera. So basically any changes alterations or new construction would need to follow this process. Then there's a separate section here on demolition. So that would be open if demolition is proposed of any of these buildings. And really what this is doing is saying that the applicant. Would need to, for demolition. The applicant would need to hold at least one meeting in the community. To take any type of public input on. On the project or the proposal itself. It's in essence, they're holding a public meeting or what we're calling a community meeting on the proposed demolition. And include that information, the information on the meeting as well as some other documentation as part of an application for demolition. And then if the property is listed on the state or national register, they would need to go through the Department of Historic Preservation to get it delisted. And I still need to follow up with VDHP on some of this to see where they stand. So it would need to be delisted before a demolition permit could be issued. And then if it's on a local register or only on the cultural resource, cultural and historic resource map, then it would need to go through city council for approval to delist or to remove it from that local registry if before a demolition permit would be issued. Eric? Yep. So since we're just talking about St. Stephens and it's not on a state or national register, it looks like, is that on the cultural map or is there some provision? And maybe we need some provision, not just for St. Stephens use that as an example, but for properties that may not be listed but maybe have historic value. And I don't know how we do that. Yeah, I think that's kind of where the intent of the local registry or the local designation would be is so that those properties that are specific and significant to the city would be able to be recognized as well. I don't know what a process looks like for getting there yet though. So I guess my question is how, so we're gonna need to have some language that allows the city to make that determination. Is that right? Well, yeah, I mean, I think what that ultimately looks like is a process to establish a local register. Okay. And again, I'm not exactly sure what that looks like. That's one of the questions I have for the state division of historic preservation when I do get in touch with them. So that is something I do intend to follow up on but right now that I don't know kind of, I don't know what that process looks like. One of the things I will say about this community meeting, this is similar to language that is included in South Burlington's code as it relates to master planning of communities. They do require that if there's an alteration or a change to a master plan for an area of development that the developer holds a public meeting basically to take input on the change. So there is some precedent for having language like this that it would basically have the developer, the onus of the public meeting would be on the developer or the property owner that's intending to demolish the building. So it kind of shifts where the process goes and puts some public eyes or at least has some public input on the process. Right now there's really nothing that requires any type of hearing or any type of public outreach for demolition currently. So this would kind of shift it. And I think this is one of the items I believe Nate was referencing at the beginning of the meeting that he may have some concerns with, but I don't know specifically about that. So with this, right now the way our regulations are, there's no teeth in that. So someone could have a public hearing, you could have 100 or 200 people come out, everyone against what they plan to do, but there's nothing to stop them from doing it, right? And so I'm assuming that we have to develop language so that the public hearing will have some teeth of some kind, I don't know. I think the idea here is that as part of this process, there needs to be a request to delist the property from the state, if it is a state or national register building and the comments and information from that public meeting would go along to the state and that would be as part of the record for the state to review. So there would be some potential, I mean, obviously the outcome of that would be anybody's guess, but at least there's an additional layer of public comment for a meeting that happened in the community rather than the process as it is right now, where it's just a meeting at the state where the notifications are not as widespread and are a little more limited. So there's less input, I think, from the public on some of those requests. Yeah, the mayor just put something on chat about local properties getting council approval, which is probably the place that has to go. But then again, it's the question of we have to get that local historic list up so that this requires because I'll use the place I grew up, 11 Manchin Street, it's not on any register, if someone wanted to rip that down and rebuild, there's nothing right now that says you can't because it's not on any register as local, I don't think it's on any local level. I think that actually might be like. Then I'll move it to another place right behind Manchin Street. Okay, well, you know what I'm saying, it's, yeah. So this is what I think we're trying to create. So right now we don't have a local register or a ranking, we've talked about doing a ranking. So let's assume we've got one together. So let's see. So right now, if a building is on the historic preservation list for the state, going back to the Manchin House story, they don't have any, they can make their designation, but the city itself didn't have any designation to add to in that situation, is that right? So that's why we're saying we want our own city council to be able to say this building is important to us and not leave that up to the state or the other government to do that, right? Is that kind of? Yeah, that's where if we did have a local register and a property was listed and there was a request to demo that property, it would have to go before council to get approval to come off of that register. Yeah, okay. To be locally delisted. So it adds a layer in there that gets some local control over this. Right. And just to add to that point, I once attended a lecture by Devin Coleman, who is the state architectural historian currently. And one of the takeaways was that he said, he said, the DHP relies on people in the town to tell them what's important. He said, we don't know every, 251 municipalities in the state of Vermont, all of the resources that could be contained there. 252 now, Joe, sorry. Great, Joe. You're right, right, right, oh my word. I need to get adjusted to that. Sorry, Joe. 252 municipalities in the state of Vermont. So yeah, they do look for people in their own communities to express what they feel is important. And this also just to add, I think it doesn't eliminate the possibility of demolition. It just kind of gives it a closer look. And it gives citizens a voice to pressure their own city council for one reason or another or local voting. So just to clarify, I understand the local one, I'm assuming we would put on the local register all of the properties that are on the national and state. So it's on both. Maybe, I think it depends on the structure, quite frankly. Well, I'm just thinking, going to Sarah's comments that if it's on the local, then whatever the state or whatever does, the local community or the city then has a say in it if it's on the local register. Yes, yeah. Yep. So do we address, Mike, do we need more teeth in the game there? Is there a possibility of getting more teeth in? I mean, I think the hard part, sorry, Sarah, I'll answer this question, or at least I'll start to answer this question. I think the real challenge is right now, in order to have the most protection we can for historic resources, that's really gonna require some sort of local historic architectural review board, certified local government status, design guidelines and design review from a historic preservation commission or something of that nature, where any, for any property that's listed, regardless of where it is listed, would have to go through this other process. And so I think until we get any of that set up, this is I think probably the best we can do right now through some sort of local land development regulation where there's at least, I don't wanna say it's a roadblock, but at least it requires an additional look at some of the properties and projects before just going forward and moving on to demolition or partial demolition or whatever the case might be. And as was noted, it's not to say that these properties won't get demolished, but at least it'll provide a local avenue for input to be provided that would then go forward either to the state or to counsel for input and for consideration on whether or not it is appropriate to delist the property. And from my standpoint, I'm kind of pushing for more regulation because of what happened with the mansion house. When we drafted these regulations initially back in what 2015, we thought we were covered by the language saying that had to go through the Vermont Historic Preservation Council and the mansion house went and they were approved to rip it down, demo it. And it was like, what? It's on the register. How can you do that? And I understand the process better now, but it was a surprise back then because we thought it was almost impossible to demolish something when we first drafted this if it had to go through the historic council. So that's why I wanna see more local regulation if we can. Right. And to your point, Mike, this is kind of where that's an instance because the state might look at a building like the mansion house that's really rich and historical significance to the community in which it resides, but has replacement windows and say, oh, got those replacement windows, we can delist it. But then like say, like up on the Hoga Boom parcel on like upper main street, you could say, oh, well that's a really outstanding example of this architectural style and it's really intact and has all of its integrity, but is it really that important of a building? Like, is that something that needs to be saved? So this is where I think if there was at least a little bit of local input, that would be useful. Yeah. And I agree, Mike. And I mean, it is, we're sort of putting the horse before the, cart before the horse a little bit, but I think what Eric was trying to explain is if we get some of this in now, it's gonna help. And then we can really work towards the ranking and what buildings we actually are talking about and have a, you know, and that report that, that Britta did, you know, it's a great report. I mean, it's just packed and, but it's a lot to pick apart. Agreed. I have no problem with that. I agree with the process. Yeah. So it makes sense to everybody else? It would be useful just, I don't know if this is the great place to say it, but if there was ever funding available again, to expand the work like that, because I think she provided some, you know, good baseline work, but it's definitely doesn't cover a lot of other things. So this is definitely not perfect language right now. There's already some things I've noticed that I would like to update her or tweak a little bit, but in general, does this concept make sense to folks as far as how the process would work for demolition of buildings? I guess I have a question about, so right now the way that this reads, it's like, and I understand there's currently no local only list essentially, the idea is that maybe there would be one that's created, but the way this reads to me is sort of like, if it's on the national or state list, then in order to get it de-list demolished, you have to apply to the state to get it de-listed. Then if it's on the local list, you have to apply to the city council to get it de-listed and demolished. It kind of, I guess the way I read this right now is like, if it were on both lists, then would you need to go through both or would you need to just go through the state? It kind of reads to me like it would just be the state, but I don't know if that's the intent. Well, and that's actually one of the notes I just made myself as I read through it, was what happens if the local list has all the same buildings as the state and national? So how do we look at that? But yeah, so that is one of the items that I intend to make a few modifications on here, but. Brandon, that's what I was trying to say is if it's on both, it needs to go through both, right? Wouldn't the idea be that a project in question would like start at the local level, like you'd get your input and then whatever commentary or lack thereof would go to the state, like when they make, you know, cause they have to have an advisory council hearing on whether to approve or de-list a building. Yeah, that might be a good way to do it. But that's still different than I think from actually needing formal approval from both the city council and the state if it's on both lists. And I don't, I'm not saying I have a position now on what, whether I would want that, I think, but I just, I think we need to clarify what the process actually would be. And to, just to interject here, Eric, wasn't some of our conversations saying that like this might not be like the best thing for council to have to take up that maybe like DRB looks at this? So I think that was under the review of projects that were not looking at demolition. So I think for demolition, yeah, we did have a conversation about that, but I think, and I think it was kind of an unknown at that point where it would be best to go. So, but I guess, so back to my question. So yes, I don't disagree with you, Joe, on that. But in general, does this seem like a, like a process that wouldn't work or that you're all comfortable with? Obviously not the way it's totally written out right now, but just generally a process of some sort of public meeting, some sort of involvement for delisting if it's a local resource or state resource or national resource before any type of permitting would be issued and to get that kind of more public process out there. Yes. I would say yes, but I would want to be careful about what gets listed. I don't want exception to swallow the rule. Yep, absolutely. Yep, understood, understood. We are doing this backwards, so it is a little tricky that way. Back here, maybe reach out to VDHP about this and see like if we have the sequence right and you think this is workable. Yeah, that is one of the questions I have for them as well. So, okay, so this covers demolition of buildings or structures or other items. The next section here is under, so for covered actions, this is what needs to be followed, obviously demolition being one, movement of the building, new construction, exterior remodeling, and then these others, I didn't think these were really necessary, quite frankly, and change of color material, lighting, existing walls and fences. I didn't think those were appropriate to keep in. And I wasn't sure about signage. I know signage is one of those things where we can have very, science can be really important to folks as far as their historic quality and character and sometimes they're considered art, sometimes they're not, so I wasn't sure if this should come out as well or be left in, so I didn't, or if it needs to be clarified that it's a historically significant sign of some kind or if the sign is listed as well, when we could have a sign listed quite frankly. I can't think of any examples of this in Monewski, but I can cite an example of this, like for instance in South Burlington, there were new standards developed for signage on Williston Road and like the Alice French Frye sign did not meet that conformity. Right. So it's a pre-existing non-conformity but it was deemed to be so iconic to that town that it was protected under that. So it does actually make sense. Well, what I was also thinking is maybe we move, maybe we eliminate it from here, but in section 4.14 which talks about signs, we have a discussion about historic signs or pre-existing historic, basically signs that are no longer conforming but have some historic quality that they can continue to exist. So that's kind of what I was thinking about instead of leaving it in this section. I think that makes sense, but I believe it in this section just reference something, whatever section you're gonna discuss it in so that it doesn't get missed. Sure. Okay, I can do that. The other question I had for you, Eric is on 5, I guess it is, changes to existing walls and fences. Should you stick in exterior walls or I think you're talking about walls like outland, scape walls, that type of thing, not walls of a house? That's how I was reading it is that it's like a fence or yes, some sort of exterior, non-structural wall. I would put some kind of a description of what is meant there. So someone doesn't think it's, you're changing the walls of a house. Well, I was thinking about just deleting it, quite frankly. Okay. This is stricken anyway. Yeah. Okay. So that it wasn't, I mean, I couldn't think of anything significant. I couldn't think of any examples where this existed in the city, quite frankly, but I may be missing something, so. Unless there's something in the future, but I guess that's not built yet. Right. That's a ways off. I don't know if this was like, again, sampled from like another municipalities, like language, cause like there are towns where this could be, you know, Right. In Burlington, like along Riverside Avenue, they have these incredible like redstone walls, cemetery there. So, but I can't really see that one. And keep in mind, a lot of this language was intended more just for general design review and not necessarily specific to, I mean, it does reference historic design review in the opening stanza, but not, some of it isn't really as applicable, I don't think. Okay. I also, can I comment? Oh, sure. So on the number two, movement of buildings. I wonder if we should define that. In other words, are we talking about moving a building within a plot? Are we talking about lifting a building up? For example, the one across the river over on the corner in Burlington by the Chase Mill. I don't know if anyone noticed that they took that building and they lifted up, put another story underneath it. Does that... That's a good question. We need to define that a little bit. Yep. That's a good point. I'll look into that a little bit more and get some clarity on that. Okay. And then the other one was number four. And maybe we are gonna talk about this later. Do we need to do something about changes that will cause irreversible alterations to historic appearance? In other words, going back to what Joe started with the doors or windows. How do we get the language in there that we don't, we, some of us when we used to don't feel if a window has been changed that that means that the building should be taken off our list or any other list. So irreversible alterations to historic appearance. And just to, like while you're saying that Sarah, I think that kind of the spirit of how we're trying to craft this is so that it will be flexible enough so that it will like reflect how kind of dynamic and changing Winooski is. Yeah. Like which we know, but like we also know that a lot of the standards that are approved elsewhere can be very restrictive. And that's not really what we're looking for, but we are looking for something that's gonna provide like a baseline of protection, like to things that are really important. Yeah. Yep, I can add some clarity there. And we also talked about briefly, I think about, you know, if we're gonna get windows that are gonna be for sound mitigation in a lot of ways. Yeah. It's another one. Yep. Okay. So this is where the, these regulations would apply and then the standard for review. And so this is gonna be for properties that are not being demolished. And most of this was taken from, or most of this is already existing. And but really kind of gets into a little bit more clarification of just basically saying that for projects that are proposing construction, alteration or changes, that this is what the, these are what we'll be looking at as far as how the properties will be reviewed specifically. So again, no changes here, just from the previous text. Let's see, I think I've moved some of this language or I've incorporated some of this language in another section. That's why it's being stricken here. And so the general standards for, I'm sorry, yeah. Yeah, those are the specific standards. Then this is just aligned on general standards to avoid undue adverse impacts. And then we get into the documentation that's needed for this, for specific drawings and information and site, sorry, photos and other site planning information. And then let's see. So this section is getting into a challenge of the applicability. So if somebody thinks that their building or structure has been altered beyond belief and is no longer contributing or has no historic value anymore, they can challenge the validity of that listing. And so in order to do that, they would need to go through this process. So basically, basically what this says is they would need to hire a qualified historic preservation consultant as defined by the federal government and provide the specific documentation that's outlined here, including any requests for delisting or things of that nature. And I might need to clean some of this up for cross-referencing back to what we were just talking about in the demolition section, but basically getting into what a process might look like if you've wanted to challenge the validity of the listing. It also includes language that basically says the city can say, thank you for this report, but we want to have a third party verify the information in it as well. So that that is included in case there's some inconsistency. The folks here at the city, we are not experts on this. So having the ability to forward this on to someone else to review. Eric, I think we had discussed this too was that, because that could create like an uneven playing field where like you have a developer say hire a consultant to basically prove why it should not be considered historic. But then like, you have nobody on the city end who can say, yes, this is in fact, is on the same credentials. And I think we had actually discussed about is it possible like Winooski could pay like somebody in a similar office in a different municipality that's already doing this like to do it like on a per diem or like I don't know exactly if that makes sense, but so we're not like having to create this whole like body, but somehow are making use of other people in the field who are out there. Right, yeah, that's, I wasn't exactly sure how to get that in here. And that was one of the questions that I have outstanding still is, you know, kind of what's the threshold for doing this? You know, at what point is, first of all, at what point is the validity of this report or study questions to where we want to have that additional review. So I still need to kind of work some of that out to see who might be somebody that would review the report, whether or not maybe the state would look at something like that or not, but I don't know if they would get into even that level of detail. So that's something I wanna find out from them also. But yeah, we did talk about how or who we could use to do that review. And I'm sorry, I wanted to make sure I pointed something out and now I can't find where it's in this draft language, but what I did not point out is that under, let's see, any of these standards that are being met or any projects that are proposing an alteration that would go through, and actually maybe it's in here. Well, anything that's any project that is proposing something other than demolition to one of these properties as is listed here, this would all require review by the Development Review Board. Yeah. I don't remember if I mentioned that or if it was clear in here, but all these standards would have to go through the DRB through a public meeting to be reviewed in order to have some dialogue and some feedback on what the changes look like. So that would not be some sort of staff directive that would be done by the Development Review Board. And that makes sense. It does seem a little bit odd if a demolition has to go before council. Like, I can't imagine council really wants to be taking this on. Yeah, council would definitely not be reviewing alterations. The only reason council would review the demolition is if it was a local register, and mostly just to remove it off of that local register or to certify that the building could be removed for whatever reason. So... Eric, can you clarify for me under the challenge language, who's that go to DRB or somebody else? That is a good question. That I think is something that is... I still need to figure out, quite frankly. And now I lost my place. Oh, there we go. Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure on that part either. So it may be that the whole process needs to be... goes through some other review. So that... I still need to think about that a little bit too. All right, and... Eric, conceptually, can you explain the difference to me between seeking to delist a property versus making it sort of a challenge to the listing, if you will? So that's a really good question. It may be... I guess I've always thought of it as a delisting would be done in order for demolition. But I guess it could also be... The challenge could also be done as a way to delist for any reason. So it could be that it's... That's a really good point, Brendan. I guess what I'm saying is either way you're sort of arguing it's not historic or such like it should be regulated in this way. So... Right. I think... No. Sorry, Mike. No, that's okay. I read it that it's a challenge to a determination made by the city or the state or whoever that it's not be delisted. You know what I mean? That's the way I read it. It's challenging a decision that was made by the city about not delisting it. As opposed to challenging its listing on the register. You follow me? Yeah, so you're sort of saying it's almost like an appeal of like the decision to not delist. And I think that goes to... Okay, who's hearing what challenge, right? Because you can't have the same... If that's what it is, it would need to be a different body. So I think we need to think about all that. Yeah, that's not the way that I intended it, Mike. The way that you just described it. But I think Brendan, your point is well taken. That what's the difference here between a request to delist and because the challenging of the applicability is really also without going through the formal process of delisting, a way to in essence, say the building is no longer historic and these regulations shouldn't apply. So there may be a way that I can wrap these two together and kind of link them back together. So... Yeah, that makes sense. But shouldn't there be some appeal process? And I guess that's where my thinking was that you can ask for a delisting. If you're not satisfied, you have an appeal which I interpret as this challenge. Yeah, that's not what this was intended to be. But there may be a need to have some level of an appeal built in as well. But that's the tricky part with having this in zoning is that appeals really follow a specific process. So let me look into that a little bit more as well. I guess what I would add is I sort of read this as like conceptually to me, it makes more sense to me thinking about this. You're saying I want to delist the property. This is sort of some objective criteria for me to argue why it should be delisted. And that feels like sort of an adjudicated decision to me like something that DRB could be weighing like in a specific case, just thinking out loud. Yeah, that's a good point. That is a good point. So maybe that is something. Yeah, let me look at that a little bit closer and see these are all really good points here that you all are making. So this is very helpful for how I'm thinking about this and what I think this might look like. So if the delisting appeal goes to the DRB and you don't like it, you would follow the normal appeal process. Right, that would then go to, if it went to the development review board, they would issue a decision and then that decision could be appealed like any other decision to the environmental court. Yeah, okay. Yep, so it could be some sort of process in that regard. Okay, I think that actually, the other item I had on here was this item G that I just put in kind of as a placeholder. I didn't know something that Joe and Sarah and I talked about were potential incentives for adaptive reuse. And I didn't know if that was something we wanted to consider as well. And one of the things we talked about was just as an example, if a property was in the form-based code, for example, if they kept the original facade of the building that was there, then that could basically reset where the required building line would go. So they could incorporate that facade or a part of that building into a new structure and wouldn't necessarily need to, wouldn't necessarily need to use the entire building, but they could use part of the building as well to just give that nod back to the historic nature of it, but it would also allow the developer to build on the lot with new construction, new techniques, and still keep some of that historic fabric there. So- And yeah, to dovetail, I mean, this was really Sarah's idea. I should give credit words to, and so I think maybe also, for instance, like if you have a structure with a PUD involved or something like that, maybe like a bonus unit, or if you've kept a state historic registered building. Right, something like that as well. So- You've retained a cultural resource. So I also wanted to, going back to that, I was gonna make this comment sort of towards the end, but it fits in perfectly. So going back into the intent, which is the very top of 4.4, I wonder how people would feel about adding a line, something like the city encourages creative repurposed uses for its older structures throughout the city. Just to try to get people to, I mean, to think about that. I really, I mean, I really like it. I know sometimes we have conversations here about like, these documents should really be setting out rules. And if it's not setting out sort of something objective as it should be in there, but I really like that, Sarah. I think it's like, I think it's totally consistent with like the master plan and our values and what we're trying to do. So- More modern thinking too, I feel, you know? Right. And I think you have the right idea there in language there, because it's not like, this isn't like telling you what color you can paint your house. It's just like, you know, I think it should be viewed as like something positive. Yep. Yeah. And I think it's like being creative about new uses. It's kind of, that's like the grand compromise a lot of the time, right? Like we're keeping the building, but we're also being modern and flexible as well. That's what you can do with it. Yeah. Right. Yep. So I want to be mindful of the time and we're at the end of this section. And I see that Leslie has her hand up for some comments. So I know she's been waiting. But before Leslie, I haven't heard from Abby as she's in it and my thing is down. Abby, anything you want to comment on or maybe better, your son. Both kids are being put down right now by not me. But yeah, no, I feel really good about Sarah and Joe sitting down with Eric. This is like their topic. You know, if they're feeling good about it, that makes me feel good about it. I liked the addition Sarah just said about the language encouraging adaptive reuse. I think that sounds great. So yeah, happy to hand over the stage to our public. Great. Hey, Leslie, if you want to give your comments. Yeah. Can you hear me? We can. Okay. I didn't know if I could be seen or not. And I'm holding in my hand a book that maybe all of you or maybe just a couple of you have read. It's by Dan Higgins and it's called Vacancy, Art and Transformation, Winooski 1969 to 2005. And so forgive me if I'm telling you stuff that you already know, but I just wanted to make a pitch here about St. Stephens because I only learned about the, in fact, I don't even know if it's a deed that can't be revoked at this point, but, you know, about its demolition. And in Dan's book, and if you don't know Dan Higgins, he's like at one point, he was named photographer Laureate of Winooski and he's been documenting the history of Winooski for many years. And the main thrust is so many big changes have happened due to the changing tide and fashion of, let's say at one point, all of the east, no, the west side of Main Street was gonna be torn down plus the mills, plus even maybe the Winooski block. And then, oh, the tide changed and then historic preservation was in vogue. And then in the 80s, we had the Champlain mills full of shops and it was quite thriving until then, you know, the rotary, blah, blah, blah. So I just, I'm just worried as a person who's lived in Winooski since the early 70s, first as a renter and then for the last 31 years as a homeowner and watching how things change and knowing this history that in incredibly, like St. Stephen's Church is truly unique. The stonework is incredible and I've never been inside, but it's been described to me as also really amazing. And right now the tide is, oh, Vermont is in a housing crisis. And, you know, it just, I guess what I'm just trying to say to everybody is to just try to take a step back and look at overall history and how everything keeps changing rather than taking the short view and that if that amazing building were taken down just to build yet more colored boxes so that eventually if they keep proliferating, Winooski just has this look like a Florida strip mall, I'm sorry, with everything too close to the street. You know, what do we become? And the state of Vermont, I forget how many years ago, you know, commerce isn't everything. So billboards were banned. This now makes Vermont a unique place to visit. We don't have that commercialization. And, you know, that was, I'm sure many business people were horrified about that. And I just really, I don't know if there's anything that can be done about St. Stephens, but I just think it would be a crime to take that building down. To me, I'm a sculptor. To me, it's like a huge amazing sculpture with the stonework and everything. And that just now when you're talking about repurposing historic buildings and so on, what little I know about the case is that parishioners approve it and don't wanna see it being used for any profane use. But I think there are plenty of opportunities for community welfare that would not be considered profane. And that's pretty much what I have to say and thank you for listening. Thanks, Leslie. I will tell you, you're not alone in those feelings. So, oh, sorry, go ahead, Mike. No, no, I was just gonna say, after that pause, we can hand it back to you, Eric. Well, I was gonna say, I think that's a good place for us to stop right now with this review. The rest of the section, and I should have mentioned at the top, I didn't give you the entirety of section, or sorry, of article four. I gave you sections 4.1 through 411 on purpose. We pick up with section 412 as our parking section. So the last three sections of article four are, I think, gonna be pretty heady. So I just wanted to try to get through these first 11 sections with this one, section 414 being the biggest one probably right now. So I think this is a good place to stop on this discussion. We can pick up at our next meeting with the rest of these changes, and I don't think it'll take much time to get through them, because there's not many. And then we can look at any updates that are made to 4.4 based on our comments tonight. Okay, great, and let me echo what Abby said. I think it was great that you and Sarah and Joe got together to discuss this ahead of time. Yeah, and also, I was gonna mention this under other business, but that is something that I wanna try to do more of is get smaller working groups of you all together as we talk through some of this language. Obviously being mindful of quorum issues, but just to get some time to bounce ideas off of you all and on certain topic areas that you're interested in. For example, Abby, I plan to reach out to you on parking to talk through some of those issues because I know that's right in your wheelhouse, but I wanna try to involve you all more in the drafting of the language instead of just giving something to you and saying, hey, what do you think? I wanna have you all help with some of the crafting of this to get buy-in in advance and hopefully help move these amendments along maybe a little quicker. Okay, let's talk about our work plan. Let me stop my share quick. So I didn't wanna spend a lot of time on this. I did send out a draft work plan with the agenda, but I also did send out the policy and priority strategies that council went through and voted on just to give you guys a sense of what council has identified and ranked and kind of what the draft looks like so far. It's a very loose draft at this point that tries to incorporate to some extent or another the activities that were prioritized by council that are relevant to planning. With all that said, the mayor is organizing a meeting in August, August 15th I think is what you sent out. Yeah, August 15th with the chairs of the various commissions and staff liaisons to have a discussion about work plans in general across all the commissions to try to better coordinate all of our work. So we'll have more information on what the planning commissions work program looks like after that meeting. So I didn't wanna spend too much time on it tonight because it's potentially gonna change and just didn't wanna thought it was best to at least give you a sense of a draft. It's pretty similar to the last several years of work plan items with a few things coming on and off but then also give you the policy priority strategies so you can see what council has ranked if you hadn't already. And just to give you a quick overview of that document, it's been organized so that any of the must do, well, I'll just share my screen again quick. It'll probably be easier to do it this way. So you'll see, I'm just giving you this one column here. So you'll notice that the stars indicate the number of votes that an item received at council when they discussed this. So items were rearranged so that the items receiving the most votes were moved to the top but only within their specific priority category. So if a recommended, actually I will give you an example here. So for example, the land use code incentives had five stars here, five votes, but it was in the recommended so it moved to the top of the recommended. It didn't move to the top of this whole list because it's still just in the recommended category and not in the must do. So you'll see that they're all kind of regrouped based on their priority category. So the must do's are all ranked appropriately. The recommended are all ranked appropriately as well. So just to give you a little background on that, but this gives you a sense of what council's thinking was on where their priorities lie for this year. But anyway, like I said, more to come on the work plan at future meetings. Mike, you're muted. Sorry about that. I muted myself because I coughed and I realized I hadn't muted when I apologized for that. Future activities. Yeah, so this, I just wanted to put this on the agenda to talk about kind of as we move forward into the summer and how often we wanna meet over the next couple of months. Also just to get any thoughts from any of you all as we start in on a new fiscal year and kind of a new year of planning work for the commission. So Eric, a couple of things. First, we probably should elect officers. You know what? I'm glad you said that. I thought I had that. It's on my DRB agenda. I didn't put it on this agenda. I'm sorry, Mike. I did not include that on this agenda. That's okay. So I guess I've been chair for a while. Abby, you're the vice chair. Correct. And Terry was the secretary last I knew. I don't know if we have a secretary. We do not currently have a secretary. Okay. So thank you, Eric. What's that? Thank you, Eric. Eric's been the secretary. Eric's the secretary. It's all been recorded so you could go back on that. Right, that's right. So technically we should be electing those three positions. So I don't know if people wanna do that tonight or think about it for the next meeting. And then the second thing is in terms of meetings, Eric and I talked and we're thinking maybe not doing another meeting in July and doing the August meeting at the end of August. So we have a bit of a break and anyone not good with that? Well, I guess if we keep our normal August dates, the second meeting that for Thursday, I will not be in town. So I mean, you all are happy to, you're welcome to carry on a meeting without me if you'd like. I won't be here either, so. But our other date are the first meeting or the first, the second Thursday of August will be August 11th. So that would still give us roughly a month between now and then if we wanted to meet on August 11th, but then only meet that one time in August as well. Wait, yeah, I won't be here on August 11th. So if that matters. Or the 28th? Or the 28th, I'll be back. Sorry, the 25th, August 25th would be the second August, but I still won't be here or I won't be in town for that. Okay. How do people feel? You okay with doing one meeting in July, one meeting in August? Yeah. I see a lot of shake in the heads. So do you want to try to do it on the 11th or the 25th? Well, I think we're pretty lost without Eric. So. I can imagine us conducting a meeting. I know. How are we gonna do that? I mean, it's possible I could zoom in from Scotland on the 11th. I would be. All right. Yeah, we'd throw you out. And it would be at, I mean, I'll read the notes and whatnot. And if I have comments, I can write them in. Yeah, that'd be like 1130 at night. You'd be. I know, I know. Scotland. No. So how about we do the 11th then? But then only one meeting in August. Only one meeting in August. Okay. And in terms of the officers. I would like, I think what I would recommend we wait until the next meeting to do that one, since it wasn't included on this agenda. And also I believe we will have a seventh member at that meeting. Well, I guess we'll have our second alternate who is the potential candidate is on the meeting tonight. Just so you all know. Oh, okay. Hello, potential candidate. Also. How, how do people feel not necessarily for the next meeting but about meeting in person? That was the other thing I was gonna bring up that folks are. So right now we're doing only remote. And so I didn't know if folks wanted to, we could go to a hybrid version so that if people wanted to come to city hall, they could or we could stay fully remote or do have all of you come in person and then still do some sort of hybrid for folks that didn't want to, for public that wanted to tune in remotely. But what are other commissions doing? Summer full remote summer full in person. My bread. I like the both. I mean, to give more accessibility that we potentially couldn't. I mean, the public should definitely be able to watch remotely. I think that there's no question about that for me. That must be a new world really. Zoom is a part of our lives. I don't know. I do really appreciate the convenience of Zoom and I know we are all busy people and it's really nice to be able to get home 10 minutes before the meeting starts and like jump on. So I'm not pushing hard for in person but I would be open to it if sort of what people want to do. I don't think I've ever met you actually in person. Right. I've seen Mike at when I went and voted on town meeting day, I met Mike. And then when a little before I closed on the house here Eric was doing the fire inspection. So met him and that's it. So I mean, I think at some point we should maybe do a in person meeting. I don't know if it needs to be our regular thing, but. I agree. I think we should do it in person. Maybe look at the September meeting. Sure. I would agree. This is more convenient. I do think we probably need to be mindful that this isn't necessarily the most conducive to participation to everyone. So the hybrid method is maybe what we, you know as we move out of this what we want to get back towards, I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. The one thing I will say is when town meeting TV is not supporting a meeting in person the logistics of running a hybrid meeting are a little tricky because everybody has to be able to see and hear both sides of that hybrid format. So when town meeting TV is here it makes it a little bit easier because they're running all the cameras in the room and they have cameras in the room. But I mean, I have been able to make it work. It's just, it can be challenging if there's a large group in the room. So that's the only thing I would say so but happy to work on that however it needs to be worked on to make sure we're all able to be seen and heard in a room. Okay. Let's finalize at the August 11th meeting. The other thing we could talk about is and I'm, I don't really have an opinion one way or another but the start time for meetings I don't know if 6 30 is still a good start time for folks or if we want to look at I would only suggest an earlier start, not a later start. So I know for example council starts their meetings at 6pm. So I don't know if folks have if this is a good time or you want to keep it this way but something else we can talk about if we want to adjust the start time of the meetings also. I'd be happy to- It seems like we started at six at one point we changed it to 6 30 to accommodate I don't know if it was Terry or who it was. It's 6 30 definitely works better for me with the two little kiddos trying to like shove dinner down their throats and get Sean in a place where he can pretend that Tibet is challenging even at 6 30. I would agree with what Abby's saying it's even 6 30 is kind of a push for me. Yeah, yeah, I'm finished. You know, I'd be having my wife and I are having a baby in February. So it'll only get worse but even now I feel like I finished dinner at like 6 25 before these meetings usually. So- Well, my cheating dinner on the meetings half the time. Yeah. When my videos off I'm probably eating that was the case tonight. So, okay, anyway, we can keep that as it is. Okay, good. Anything else on that? I think we're good. So we'll go to city updates from Eric or Christine. Mayor, I'll defer to you. There hasn't been a council meeting since the last planning commission. So no big news. What are you guys doing? Taking it easy. Good for you. Good for you. We have our meeting Monday and we'll be getting the introduction of the parody housing incentive language that you all put through. So we're moving along with that. Nice. And I have nothing specific to add under city updates as well. We do have an election coming up before our next meeting. I believe isn't it the ninth? Oh, it's primary day, right? Primary day. Primary and then I think there's a bond vote from Chittin and Solid Waste District. Is that right, Mike? I don't know. Maybe that's through the general. What's that? Maybe that isn't until the general. That probably in general. Yeah. Okay. Question, maybe through this. I can't even remember that you, Eric, might have given us an answer on this already. I don't know the number of it, but the Hogan Boom property, that's all I can call it, on Upper Main Street, is that, there was a plan set forward. Is that project moving forward? They are working on addressing some of the conditions of the approval. Okay. But yes, there is a proposal that was submitted and you can actually see the plans. They are on the city's website under the project review committee section. So those are publicly available and the conditions of approval are also listed there as well. So the applicants working through those conditions. Okay. So that's a demo, all that property will be? There's, let's see, there are two units on there now. One is pretty much abandoned and has been boarded up for, I think, as long as I've been in the city. And the other one, I believe, is a rental as well. So there would be some demo there, yes. At one time, that was a significant farmhouse, actually. Cool building, but it's pretty shot. With your neglect, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Any other business? Any? Nothing? Oh, sorry. It's not eight yet. I have a minute still, Mike. Is there any updates? I didn't want to interrupt you. Do you have other business? Is there any updates on St. Stephen's? Are we still just as we were as nothing? It's under contract for sale, Bill. Yeah, probably, I would guess that the closing will be probably sometime in September. I don't know if anyone has approached the city, Eric, about any plans at this point. Nobody's talked to me about anything. Yeah. Okay, any other business? It's now eight o'clock, Sarah, so your minute's up. Looking for a motion to adjourn. I might have. Abby, second. Bye. I'll second. All right, Joe or Sarah, whatever. All in favor. Thank you, everyone. Good night.